The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin
Mary,(some time in the first century)

Dear Virgil,

Your
plan for a new apologetics club looks, if I may be honest, excellent. I am certain that setting up
your booth during freshmen orientation (it´s hard to believe another school year has already
appeared on the doorstep, isn´t it?) will stir up enough interest to garner good numbers for the
first meeting. And if you follow your plan, everyone who comes to that meeting will bring their
friends to the next one because it will have been so interesting. Having had to deal with challenges
to the Catholic faith in countless situations over the past decades, I would like to offer you, as
you begin your new venture, a word of wisdom.

It has to do with a surefire
structure for any defense or explanation of a Catholic doctrine or practice that may come under
fire. It´s the simplest thing, but it helps give focus, balance, and composure to discussions that
too often lack those qualities (and bear little fruit because of it). You see, because the Catholic
faith is true, any single point of doctrine or practice can always be explained/defended from three
different perspectives, at least one of which is almost bound to strike your listener as convincing
(and all three together tend only to add power to the punch). The three perspectives are 1) common
sense, 2) history, and 3) the Bible. Even when it takes a real act of faith to accept a particular
teaching, these three avenues of argumentation will at least prepare the ground for that such an act
of faith by showing how reasonable the truths of faith are. Let´s illustrate them with the subject
of today´s Solemnity: Mary´s Assumption.

Here´s what the dogma actually
affirms (as expressed in Pius XII´s declaration of the dogma in 1950 and reiterated by the
Catechism): "… the Immaculate Virgin… when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up
body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she
might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and
death." The Catechism goes on to add that "The Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a singular
participation in her Son´s Resurrection and an anticipation of the resurrection of other
Christians."(#966)

The dogma has all kinds of wonderful spiritual
implications, but those won´t interest someone who objects to the truth of the fact. So you explain
it first with Common Sense. Mary was truly Jesus´ mother. Jesus loved her more than any of us love
our mothers (because he was free from all taint of selfishness, which reduces our capacity to love).
Now, if you or I were to become King of the World, would we not give our mothers a special share in
our glory if we had the power to do so, especially if our promotion had happened justly? Of course.
So it only makes sense that Jesus would reward his beloved mother in a special way. That he chose to
do so by assuming her, body and soul, into heaven when her earthly mission was complete is, from
this perspective, quite reasonable.

But history adds to the weight of
common sense. We know that the mortal remains of all of Jesus´ closest companions, of all the people
who had key roles in the early Church (Peter, Paul, the other Apostles, the martyrs…), were
carefully preserved and venerated by the early Christians. It was actually a kind of a craze among
the first generations of Christians, a craze that continued even into the Middle Ages and beyond –
everyone clamored for the most renowned relics. Thus we have the Catacombs, the shrines, the great
Basilicas built over the tombs of the Apostles, etc. Mary, being Jesus´ mother and having a key role
not only in his life but also in the early years of the Church, would have been a prime candidate
for this kind of veneration. And yet, there is absolutely no record of any church or community or
individual ever laying claim to the mortal remains of Mary, the Mother of Jesus. That she was
assumed body and soul into heaven would be a perfect explanation for this odd fact. (The early
appearance of this doctrine and its celebration in the early Church´s liturgy is another historical
argument, but you get the idea…)

Finally, the Bible weighs in as well.
First of all, there is precedent in the Old Testament for God´s assuming exceptionally holy people
into heaven – Enoch and Elijah both had the privilege. Secondly, the typology of the Kingdom of
Israel fits perfectly (uncannily, in fact) with the dogma of the Assumption. First of all, the Queen
in ancient Israel was always the Queen Mother (the kings had too many wives to make one of them the
Queen – it would have caused revolutions of envy in the palace). And when the King took his throne,
he would raise (assume) his Mother to his side. So we see Solomon greeting his mother Bathsheba when
she came to him after his inauguration: "So Bathsheba went to King Solomon, to speak to him on
behalf of Adonijah. The king rose to meet her, and bowed down to her; then he sat on his throne, and
had a throne brought for the king´s mother, and she sat on his right." (1 King 2:19)

He set up a throne for her; he assumed her into his royal glory. There you have
it: common sense, history, the Bible – every Catholic doctrine or point of discipline can be thus
explained. Well, I´ve gone on longer than I planned. I always get excited when I use the Triptych
(three-ply) method of Apologetics. I hope you find it useful.

Join the new media evangelization. Your tax-deductible gift allows Catholic.net to build a culture of life in our nation and throughout the world. Please help us promote the Church's new evangelization by donating to Catholic.net right now. God bless you for your generosity.